Way to take the lead, Mr. President!
Shouts of Freedom and Joy Ring out in Liberated Tripoli
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shouts-of-Freedom-and-Joy-by-Press-Release-110821-187.html
Officially, we are not in Libya, but I'm sure we will get another speech filled with "I" and "me" from our President though.
I'd not heard Gadaffi had been officialy deposed at this point.
Saddam Hussein (sp?) is gone too. Haven't heard too much joy and jubilation about that.
Has he taken a bow yet....???
Quote from: Breadburner on August 21, 2011, 09:44:16 PM
Has he taken a bow yet....???
No, but I'm sure we will see fist pumps and hear shout out's about the whole thing. ::)
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 21, 2011, 09:20:36 PM
Saddam Hussein (sp?) is gone too. Haven't heard too much joy and jubilation about that.
for 3 trill and thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's.
Lousy comp, don't you think?
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 21, 2011, 09:20:36 PM
Saddam Hussein (sp?) is gone too. Haven't heard too much joy and jubilation about that.
The return on investment really just hasn't lived up, sadly.
In Libya, for the equivalent of some strong speechifying and a couple hundred mil in military cooperation (ie. drone support) we get to be on the right side of the Arab Spring and look like we even might have helped the rebels fight for democracy. Obama played this well, IMHO, given his constraints (two wars, budget limitations, etc).
As money spent on American PR, on shoring up what's left of the brand, it was well spent.
Quote from: we vs us on August 21, 2011, 11:31:43 PM
The return on investment really just hasn't lived up, sadly.
In Libya, for the equivalent of some strong speechifying and a couple hundred mil in military cooperation (ie. drone support) we get to be on the right side of the Arab Spring and look like we even might have helped the rebels fight for democracy. Obama played this well, IMHO, given his constraints (two wars, budget limitations, etc).
As money spent on American PR, on shoring up what's left of the brand, it was well spent.
but it happened while Obama was vacationing.....
http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/
Quote from: we vs us on August 21, 2011, 11:31:43 PM
The return on investment really just hasn't lived up, sadly.
In Libya, for the equivalent of some strong speechifying and a couple hundred mil in military cooperation (ie. drone support) we get to be on the right side of the Arab Spring and look like we even might have helped the rebels fight for democracy. Obama played this well, IMHO, given his constraints (two wars, budget limitations, etc).
As money spent on American PR, on shoring up what's left of the brand, it was well spent.
Except for the whole part about those rebels we are helping now becoming our enemies down the road. We will never curry true favor in the Arab world.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 08:45:04 AM
Except for the whole part about those rebels we are helping now becoming our enemies down the road. We will never curry true favor in the Arab world.
As if Qadaffi was really ever our friend.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 08:45:04 AM
We will never curry true favor in the Arab world.
Making some backwoods jackass preacher world news for burning a Koran doesn't help us much.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 08:45:04 AM
We will never curry true favor in the Arab world.
We cannot. We may be willing to die for our beliefs and way of life, but they are willing to kill for theirs.
Our philosophies of government, life, religion, and equality make us a threat to their way of life. We are the fundamental enemy, and unlike western philosophy of "evangelizing" our freedoms, their philosophy teaches only the sword.
It is in our nature to continue to try, but what a delicate dance it is.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 09:51:47 AM
We cannot. We may be willing to die for our beliefs and way of life, but they are willing to kill for theirs.
Our philosophies of government, life, religion, and equality make us a threat to their way of life. We are the fundamental enemy, and unlike western philosophy of "evangelizing" our freedoms, their philosophy teaches only the sword.
It is in our nature to continue to try, but what a delicate dance it is.
Oh right, and people spewing tripe like that doesn't help us much either.
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 09:56:26 AM
Oh right, and people spewing tripe like that doesn't help us much either.
Did I say something incorrect?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 10:00:13 AM
Did I say something incorrect?
Of course you did.
If we could educate people enough maybe more people on both sides would see what is so incorrect about what you've said.
So, is our way of life not perceived as a threat in many Arab countries?
Is it perhaps just a cultural difference?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 10:16:05 AM
So, is our way of life not perceived as a threat in many Arab countries?
Is it perhaps just a cultural difference?
There are extremists on both sides of the world on this. The problem with the Christian nation is that most generalize the ENTIRE Muslim world as being the extremists. That's not the case.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 10:16:05 AM
So, is our way of life not perceived as a threat in many Arab countries?
Is it perhaps just a cultural difference?
You really think an entire country or huge group would think something like that?
The whole country would be Sally Kerns?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 10:16:05 AM
So, is our way of life not perceived as a threat in many Arab countries?
Is it perhaps just a cultural difference?
You take things so personally.
To some, yes we're a threat. To others, we're an inspiration. To others, meh, they could care less and they are much more concerned with their and their family's day to day prospects. The Arab world has easily a couple of billion people, in 15 countries or more. In other words, it's not a single cultural entity and all of them have their own relationships with what we are or aren't to them.
It may be true that we can't ever fully win over the Arab world -- as distinct from the Muslim world, btw -- but it's also true that we could find ourselves in a much better position than we have been in relation to them. Encouraging a movement that is obviously sweeping that part of the world can only help us.
Quote from: Hoss on August 22, 2011, 10:18:19 AM
There are extremists on both sides of the world on this. The problem with the Christian nation is that most generalize the ENTIRE Muslim world as being the extremists. That's not the case.
I agree with that.
I think the prime difference is how these cultural differences are dealt with in western cultures as compared with many Islamic societies.
Freedom has a broad definition, but I am simply talking about the basal concepts.
Islamic societies have battled against their own internal rebellions for a thousand years. Modesty, the protection of women, and the infiltration of other cultural standards.
The problem today, is that these societies face erosion because the vary principals they try to protect, make it very hard for them to compete in the modern world. In many cases 50% of their population is "protected" from education, work, or innovation. Penalties for deviation from the true path are ancient and steep.
The very tools they require to be successful societies (trade, internet, advanced communications) provide uncontrollable inlets that allow modern society with all of it's freedoms, vices, and evils to seep in.
Rather than deal with this infection of infidelic influence in a modern format, many of these societies process infractions based on ancient prescriptions, and their "modern" laws allow them to do so.
At the very core of the differences between our cultures is the concept of religion v.s. state. Because the laws in these cultures dictate that the "church" IS the state, and no law can come before Islamic law, foreign policy is typically shaped by the same ancient prescriptions. Unfortunately, in most cases these prescriptions do not offer peaceful alternatives. Progressive leaders that do stand up and work towards compromise are typically, and eventually ousted by the religious rulers (who wield far more power).
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 10:42:47 AM
I agree with that.
I think the prime difference is how these cultural differences are dealt with in western cultures as compared with many Islamic societies.
Freedom has a broad definition, but I am simply talking about the basal concepts.
Islamic societies have battled against their own internal rebellions for a thousand years. Modesty, the protection of women, and the infiltration of other cultural standards.
The problem today, is that these societies face erosion because the vary principals they try to protect, make it very hard for them to compete in the modern world. In many cases 50% of their population is "protected" from education, work, or innovation. Penalties for deviation from the true path are ancient and steep.
The very tools they require to be successful societies (trade, internet, advanced communications) provide uncontrollable inlets that allow modern society with all of it's freedoms, vices, and evils to seep in.
Rather than deal with this infection of infidelic influence in a modern format, many of these societies process infractions based on ancient prescriptions, and their "modern" laws allow them to do so.
At the very core of the differences between our cultures is the concept of religion v.s. state. Because the laws in these cultures dictate that the "church" IS the state, and no law can come before Islamic law, foreign policy is typically shaped by the same ancient prescriptions. Unfortunately, in most cases these prescriptions do not offer peaceful alternatives. Progressive leaders that do stand up and work towards compromise are typically, and eventually ousted by the religious rulers (who wield far more power).
OK, now turn your magic looking glass in this country's direction and think about what you keep writing.
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 10:46:15 AM
OK, now turn your magic looking glass in this country's direction and think about what you keep writing.
Simmer down now.
Sure, we have some extremists here too, but we are not prone as a country to embrace, allow or even tolerate their actions if they infringe on the rights of others.
It is a favorite hobby of the left to turn the looking glass, and it is healthy for us to engage in self criticism occasionally. It would probably require some more specific examples on your part so that we may make a fair comparison.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 10:53:06 AM
Simmer down now.
Sure, we have some extremists here too, but we are not prone as a country to embrace, allow or even tolerate their actions if they infringe on the rights of others.
It is a favorite hobby of the left to turn the looking glass, and it is healthy for us to engage in self criticism occasionally. It would probably require some more specific examples on your part so that we may make a fair comparison.
It won't matter. Your clouded intolerance would remain.
You seem like a smart guy. I blame the talk shows you choose to listen to.
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 10:59:24 AM
It won't matter. Your clouded intolerance would remain.
No, but I do see a certain intolerance toward Christianity in your posts which tries to equate all Christians as being something that resembles Sally Kern or Fred Phelps. They are a very small minority of Christians.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 11:07:33 AM
No, but I do see a certain intolerance toward Christianity in your posts which tries to equate all Christians as being something that resembles Sally Kern or Fred Phelps. They are a very small minority of Christians.
And there lies the irony, doesn't it? We don't generalize all Christians as bible-thumping and bat-smile crazy, but as I stated, many of those of the Christian faith do just exactly that with Muslims.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 11:07:33 AM
No, but I do see a certain intolerance toward Christianity in your posts which tries to equate all Christians as being something that resembles Sally Kern or Fred Phelps. They are a very small minority of Christians.
As a quieter portion of the populace I do tend to speak up about some of the less tolerant views.
I have little patience for anyone who thinks the way either of your examples think. I believe they're wrong no matter what religion they call themselves.
Their faith is just as screwed up as any of them. Their Jesus isn't as tolerant as many of the other Christians' Jesus.
Edited. I think people will understand this. Many of you have friends/family members that will call themselves the same religion you claim yet your views are very different.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 10:42:47 AM
The very tools they require to be successful societies (trade, internet, advanced communications) provide uncontrollable inlets that allow modern society with all of it's freedoms, vices, and evils to seep in.
I don't think you're wrong here, but it's crucial to note that every society is dealing with these things. Take a gander at China, who is going through about a hundred-fifty years of industrial evolution in a decade or so. Rocketing, in some cases, straight from agrarianism to info-tech modernism. We don't hear about it, but you have to know that the cultural dislocation has to be huge.
We're also dealing -- and not so well -- with the erosion of our own customs and society. The current dysfunction of our government is one major marker. The rise of the Tea Party is another, so's our declining middle class.
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 11:27:20 AM
As a quieter portion of the populace I do tend to speak up about some of the less tolerant views.
I have little patience for anyone who thinks the way either of your examples think. I believe they're wrong no matter what religion they call themselves.
Their faith is just as screwed up as any of them. Their Jesus isn't as tolerant as many of the other Christians' Jesus.
Edited. I think people will understand this. Many of you have friends/family members that will call themselves the same religion you claim yet your views are very different.
I think Kern and Phelps are a huge embarrassment to all religion, not just Christianity. I simply see a lot of libs (not lumping you in) characterize all Christians as being in the bat smile crazy mold while not understanding why there is the same tendency to lump all Muslims the same way.
For some reason, humans have an innate ability to identify large groups with just a few of the worst examples for that group.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 11:53:17 AM
For some reason, humans have an innate ability to identify large groups with just a few of the worst examples for that group.
Like the Dutch.
I don't discriminate on religion of skin color. I base my bias on eye color. You dark eyes are just intolerant of us pale eyes.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 22, 2011, 12:05:20 PM
You dark eyes are just intolerant of us pale eyes.
Hear hear.
I'm not intolerant, I just don't like anyone or anything.
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 10:59:24 AM
It won't matter. Your clouded intolerance would remain.
You seem like a smart guy. I blame the talk shows you choose to listen to.
Now I'm just confused. Have I said anything remotely intolerant?
I understand that you need to look at my posts through your filters, but I have said nothing to indicate a western based tolerance issue.
On the contrary, many Islamic cultures have tolerance issues with western culture. That IS the issue.
We do not forbid the cultural/religious practices of Muslims in this country, on the contrary, in many cases we celebrate Islam as part of the multicultural fabric of our nation, however it would be very unwise for us to expect the same in their country. You need only to visit Saudi Arabia on a business trip with a female companion to learn that they will not tolerate the concept of western equality.
This is all fine, and it is their culture, and up to them to change if they desire it, but to throw that back on us and say that we are the intolerant ones because we celebrate our freedom and (sometimes without invitation) flaunt it in front of others is unwarranted.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 12:27:37 PM
Now I'm just confused. Have I said anything remotely intolerant?
I understand that you need to look at my posts through your filters, but I have said nothing to indicate a western based tolerance issue.
On the contrary, many Islamic cultures have tolerance issues with western culture. That IS the issue.
We do not forbid the cultural/religious practices of Muslims in this country, on the contrary, in many cases we celebrate Islam as part of the multicultural fabric of our nation, however it would be very unwise for us to expect the same in their country. You need only to visit Saudi Arabia on a business trip with a female companion to learn that they will not tolerate the concept of western equality.
This is all fine, and it is their culture, and up to them to change if they desire it, but to throw that back on us and say that we are the intolerant ones because we celebrate our freedom and (sometimes without invitation) flaunt and celebrate it in-front of others is unwarranted.
Anyone else care to give it a shot?
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 12:29:04 PM
Anyone else care to give it a shot?
No, you are the one that called me "intollerent," I am very interested in your explanation of this character flaw of mine.
Not me.
Do you think the discussion went south due to nobody being able to refute the success of Obama's foreign policy decision making ability? :)
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 22, 2011, 12:35:31 PM
Not me.
Do you think the discussion went south due to nobody being able to refute the success of Obama's foreign policy decision making ability? :)
No.
Nobody is unlucky all the time.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 22, 2011, 12:35:31 PM
Not me.
Do you think the discussion went south due to nobody being able to refute the success of Obama's foreign policy decision making ability? :)
Perhaps. From the Halls of Martha's Vineyard to the shores of Tripoli. ;)
Don't really think it had much to do with the President. I will be very happy for Egypt if they can sustain this peace with the rebel organization and NATO aid. The problem is that so many of these things end up disintegrating over time. With no government, a vacuum forms and organizations like Hamas and The Brotherhood step in with significant financial backing to pick up the pieces and restore simple services like power, water, trash, education and other amenities.
I am hopeful that we don't see that in this case.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 12:42:23 PM
Perhaps. From the Halls of Martha's Vineyard to the shores of Tripoli. ;)
Don't really think it had much to do with the President. I will be very happy for Egypt if they can sustain this peace with the rebel organization and NATO aid. The problem is that so many of these things end up disintegrating over time. With no government, a vacuum forms and organizations like Hamas and The Brotherhood step in with significant financial backing to pick up the pieces and restore simple services like power, water, trash, education and other amenities.
I am hopeful that we don't see that in this case.
Some political group has to....glad you left out the Hezzies....
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 12:33:18 PM
No, you are the one that called me "intollerent," I am very interested in your explanation of this character flaw of mine.
Re-read this and try...please try...to have a mind about it that's a secular point of view.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18012.msg209195#msg209195
See what you've done there? You are generalizing the ENTIRE Muslim faith as being 'they'. Many non-secularists do this to drum up Christian chest-thumping. I'm not saying you did this on purpose; it's the result of the last 10 plus years of hearing how the Muslims are evil.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 10:16:05 AM
So, is our way of life not perceived as a threat in many Arab countries?
Our way of life is perceived as a threat to many in
this country. Extremist extremists are extremist. Sometimes extremism is based on religion. Sometimes it's based on a perceived threat to one's rights. Sometimes it's based on nothing but teh crazy.
Could you imagine how this could've gone if he-who-should-not-be-named had piped up?
Anyway, thanks for the assist Spock, Sulu.
Quote from: Hoss on August 22, 2011, 01:18:05 PM
Re-read this and try...please try...to have a mind about it that's a secular point of view.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18012.msg209195#msg209195
Perhaps we need to define US and THEM.
When I speak of "Western Philosophy" I am inclusive of all cultures that make up that quilt. Our point of pride is the freedom we enjoy in expressing. . .well. . .our freedom.
When I speak of "Them," that would mean Islamic societies that rely on "The Path" as dictated in Islam.
Lets look at a simple example. In the majority of Western societies, adultery is frowned upon, and for the most part homosexuality is accepted, even though both may be against the majority of religious doctrines.
In many Islamic societies these crimes, known as hudud, are punishable by death. Even in what we consider a modern Islamic society, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, these punishments are carried out regularly.
So, when I say that we "evangelize" our freedoms, I mean it, and when I say that many of those same freedoms are met with the "sword" in Islamic societies, I also mean it.
If that makes me intolerant, then I suppose there are simply some practices that I can't see myself tolerating.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 01:40:41 PM
In many Islamic societies these crimes, known as hudud, are punishable by death. Even in what we consider a modern Islamic society, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, these punishments are carried out regularly.
And this is where you lose me. Pretty much nobody considers Saudi Arabia to be a modern Islamic society, at least in the way they treat their people.
Quote from: nathanm on August 22, 2011, 01:43:06 PM
And this is where you lose me. Pretty much nobody considers Saudi Arabia to be a modern Islamic society, at least in the way they treat their people.
+1
Good. I'm glad you feel that way. What would be your idea of a modern Islamic society?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 01:44:58 PM
What would be your idea of a modern Islamic society?
Start at home.
http://www.istulsa.org/ (http://www.istulsa.org/)
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 01:47:17 PM
Start at home.
http://www.istulsa.org/ (http://www.istulsa.org/)
If you would read my posts, we are not discussing Islam as a religion, we are disusing it as a form of government. Our primary disconnect from the Arab world is Western society v.s. Islamic society.
Any religion that operates within the framework of a free society is not at issue here.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 01:53:49 PM
If you would read my posts, we are not discussing Islam as a religion, we are disusing it as a form of government. Our primary disconnect from the Arab world is Western society v.s. Islamic society.
Any religion that operates within the framework of a free society is not at issue here.
I disagree.
It is a religion, not a form of government. The government would be called a theocracy. You need to read your own posts.
The converation has become about your tendency to put everyone into a group.
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 01:57:34 PM
I disagree.
It is a religion, not a form of government. The government would be called a theocracy. You need to read your own posts.
That is correct, most of the Islamic states are indeed Theocracies. Some have an elected figure head, but the law is the law of Islam outlined in the Qur'an.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 02:03:06 PM
That is correct, most of the Islamic states are indeed Theocracies. Some have an elected figure head, but the law is the law of Islam outlined in the Qur'an.
Circles.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 02:03:06 PM
That is correct, most of the Islamic states are indeed Theocracies. Some have an elected figure head, but the law is the law of Islam outlined in the Qur'an.
But not all of them are. You're spinning.
I'll say it again. Most Christians I know generalize the entire Muslim faith as the less than one percent of the crazy fundies that like strapping bombs to their waists and plotting to blow up stuff that's even remotely associated to the Western way of life. Most of them wouldn't socialize with a Muslim family if they had a pistol to their temples.
Quote from: Hoss on August 22, 2011, 02:18:18 PM
But not all of them are.
True, some are set up as republics, but for the most part there is a ruling class of religious leaders, and the laws are not based on what would be considered basic human rights. They are based on Islamic doctrine.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 02:22:30 PM
True, some are set up as republics, but for the most part there is a ruling class of religious leaders, and the laws are not based on what would be considered basic human rights. They are based on Islamic doctrine.
OK, if we're going this route again...do you think about the strength of the faith based lobbyists in this country? Are you under the impression that laws for the USA are not formed by religious doctrine?
Quote from: nathanm on August 22, 2011, 01:22:54 PM
Our way of life is perceived as a threat to many in this country. Extremely extremist extremists are extremely extremist. Sometimes extremism is based on religion. Sometimes it's based on a perceived threat to one's rights. Sometimes it's based on nothing but teh crazy.
FIFY
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 02:26:04 PM
OK, if we're going this route again...do you think about the strength of the faith based lobbyists in this country? Are you under the impression that laws for the USA are not formed by religious doctrine?
That's a great question! I do believe that laws are influenced by religions of all types. I also believe they are influenced by experiences, corporate affiliations, emotion, gender, race, sexual preference, disability, and sometimes tha crazy.
They must stand the constitutional test before they are law (and sometimes even after). The guiding principals that make us what we are, also prevent us from being anything less.
But there I go again, celebrating American exceptionalism. If there's one thing I've learned, the best way to piss off a liberal is to tout the merits of the constitution.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 02:34:55 PM
That's a great question! I do believe that laws are influenced by religions of all types. I also believe they are influenced by experiences, corporate affiliations, emotion, gender, race, sexual preference, disability, and sometimes tha crazy.
They must stand the constitutional test before they are law (and sometimes even after). The guiding principals that make us what we are, also prevent us from being anything less.
But there I go again, celebrating American exceptionalismisolationalism. If there's one thing I've learned, the best way to piss off a liberal is to tout the merits of the constitution.
FIFY
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 02:34:55 PM
That's a great question! I do believe that laws are influenced by religions of all types. I also believe they are influenced by experiences, corporate affiliations, emotion, gender, race, sexual preference, disability, and sometimes tha crazy.
They must stand the constitutional test before they are law (and sometimes even after). The guiding principals that make us what we are, also prevent us from being anything less.
But there I go again, celebrating American exceptionalism. If there's one thing I've learned, the best way to piss off a liberal is to tout the merits of the constitution.
You lose yourself in these things don't you? The "constitutional test" as you put it is a matter of opinion (Supreme Court makes their learned opinion if it gets that far for example).
Anyway, you should probably try to stop grouping all people of one faith together. Most faiths don't even lump themselves together.
So. . .to put this discussion to bed, the draft of Libya's new constitution was just released, and it is indeed to be a legislation based on Islamic Sharia as provided in article 1.
You may now read it here http://www.scribd.com/doc/62823350/Libya-Draft-Constitutional-Charter-for-the-Transitional-Stage
This is the basis for the transitional government. It is basic and without much detail because Sharia provides most of the necessary legislative detail.
Since 1960 women have had the right to vote in Libya. Under this form of government, that is now over.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 02:50:24 PM
So. . .to put this discussion to bed, the draft of Libya's new constitution was just released, and it is indeed to be a legislation based on Islamic Sharia as provided in article 1.
You may now read it here http://www.scribd.com/doc/62823350/Libya-Draft-Constitutional-Charter-for-the-Transitional-Stage
This is the basis for the transitional government. It is basic and without much detail because Sharia provides most of the necessary legislative detail.
Since 1960 women have had the right to vote in Libya. Under this form of government, that is now over.
So you're blaming their entire population for anything you feel is wrong with this? Are you blaming more than just that country? Are you blaming all of Islam? How about the Islamic Society of Tulsa?
If this is actually what passes and becomes their government, are you going to blame the women who can't vote?
What is your point?
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 02:54:48 PM
So you're blaming their entire population for anything you feel is wrong with this? Are you blaming more than just that country? Are you blaming all of Islam? How about the Islamic Society of Tulsa?
If this is actually what passes and becomes their government, are you going to blame the women who can't vote?
What is your point?
Not blaming anyone. The discussion was originally based on if we can ever find peace between Western society and the Arab world.
Then you jumped in like a good liberal and started shouting
"intolerance" and then went round and round trying to get you to establish where the intolerance lies.
I anticipated that eventually Libya would turn to Hamas or The Brotherhood and become a more fundamental Islamic state, I just didn't expect it so fast!
Go have a beer or something.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 03:01:31 PM
Go have a beer or something.
Later.
QuoteI anticipated that eventually Libya would turn to Hamas or The Brotherhood and become a more fundamental Islamic state
Why did you anticipate that?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 02:50:24 PM
Since 1960 women have had the right to vote in Libya. Under this form of government, that is now over.
This is from article six of the document. It's says that your statement is wrong:
Quote
The State shall guarantee for all woman (sic) all opportunities which shall allow her to participate entirely and actively in political, economic and social spheres.
Can you explain how the three most populous Muslim majority nations have elected female leaders and we have not? That's not even counting India which has the world's third largest Muslim population which has also had elected female leaders.
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 03:11:32 PM
Later.
Why did you anticipate that?
Faux News told him so. He's basically a Newscorp newsbot.
Quote from: swake on August 22, 2011, 03:12:42 PM
This is from article six of the document. It's says that your statement is wrong:
Can you explain how the three most populous Muslim majority nations have elected female leaders and we have not? That's not even counting India which has the world's third largest Muslim population which has also had elected female leaders.
We will have to see where that goes. If they are intending to use Sharia, this may only be lip service. Depending on who their backer becomes (Hamas et. al.) that may change.
For now, I will stand corrected on that matter.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 03:16:09 PM
We will have to see where that goes. If they are intending to use Sharia, this may only be lip service. Depending on who their backer becomes (Hamas et. al.) that may change.
For now, I will stand corrected on that matter.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of that.
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 03:17:51 PM
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of that.
Of what?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 03:19:31 PM
Of what?
Even while kind of admitting your mistake you still manage to group them together and say "lip service" due to their region/religion/whatever your're using to justify this stance you insist on taking.
This isn't a "liberal", as you put it, stance. You're doing this wrong.
Quote from: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 03:28:07 PM
Even while kind of admitting your mistake you still manage to group them together and say "lip service" due to their region/religion/whatever your're using to justify this stance you insist on taking.
This isn't a "liberal", as you put it, stance. You're doing this wrong.
You may be right. They may have every intention of preserving or even expanding freedoms in that country. You can see that they are very cautious about actually spelling it out, but then again this is just a first draft.
Just so I understand, what "stance" do you think I am taking?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 03:33:07 PM
You may be right. They may have every intention of preserving or even expanding freedoms in that country. You can see that they are very cautious about actually spelling it out, but then again this is just a first draft.
Just so I understand, what "stance" do you think I am taking?
How are you not dizzy after today? Srsly?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 03:33:07 PM
Just so I understand, what "stance" do you think I am taking?
You can look back and see that you've grouped people of Islamic faith as one. They aren't. I'm sure many of them, who do not live in a politically free society, would love to have the freedoms you and I enjoy. If the USA lost it's collective mind and adopted some of the laws/guidelines some of the "Kerns" would like to have, we'd be in the same boat.
Don't get me wrong, I tend to group many people of faith together but you seem to do it as a "us against them". I do it because of the flying spaghetti monster.
Is that all you got from that?
It has noting to do with "grouping people together." It has everything to do with two societies, one with government imposed morality, dictated by strict religious doctrine, and one that promotes the absolute opposite, trying to find common ground.
I'm willing to bet majority of people living in countries like Iran, or Sudi Arabia admire and want the same freedoms we have. That's not the point. The point is that governments framed on religion do not provide for that freedom, and once established, do not change without overthrow. . . nor do they get along very well with us.
As you can see, the very first article in Libya's constitutional draft (transitional) establishes Sharia. Did the majority of people get to make that decision? NO
Does that tell you that perhaps that established principal is important to those who wish to be in power? YES
Do you think that a nation established under Sharia law ever gets the right to revoke that law without revolution?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 03:58:39 PM
Is that all you got from that?
It has noting to do with "grouping people together." It has everything to do with two societies, one with government imposed morality, dictated by strict religious doctrine, and one that promotes the absolute opposite, trying to find common ground.
I'm willing to bet majority of people living in countries like Iran, or Sudi Arabia admire and want the same freedoms we have. That's not the point. The point is that governments framed on religion do not provide for that freedom, and once established, do not change without overthrow. . . nor do they get along very well with us.
As you can see, the very first article in Libya's constitutional draft (transitional) establishes Sharia. Did the majority of people get to make that decision? NO
Does that tell you that perhaps that established principal is important to those who wish to be in power? YES
Do you think that a nation established under Sharia law ever gets the right to revoke that law without revolution?
I'll remember you said that the next time a debate about separation of church and state comes up. Because there are MANY republican lawmakers who think that the Constitution is a document framed on religion. The Christian religion. And it partially is. Didn't we base the Constitution in many ways from the Magna Carta which has some root in Christianity?
Quote from: Hoss on August 22, 2011, 04:03:19 PM
I'll remember you said that the next time a debate about separation of church and state comes up. Because there are MANY republican lawmakers who think that the Constitution is a document framed on religion.
Please do. The constitution is most certainly not a document framed on religion. I don't see how it could be.
I'm still amazed that through all that, we're still confusing Arabs with Muslims. Can we all go back and read our wikipedia entries again?
Quote from: we vs us on August 22, 2011, 04:14:33 PM
I'm still amazed that through all that, we're still confusing Arabs with Muslims. Can we all go back and read our wikipedia entries again?
That's a good point, but not that important. Our relationship difficulties with Arab nations is not due to race. It is do the philosophical differences.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2011, 04:17:11 PM
That's a good point, but not that important. Our relationship difficulties with Arab nations is not due to race. It is do the philosophical differences.
You do realize there are some Arabs that are Christians, correct?
you boyz sure aren't in the mood to destroy Potus Obama today....
Why don't you start a new thread and title it "Blues for Allah?"
singed thread...
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 22, 2011, 04:23:30 PM
you boyz sure aren't in the mood to destroy Potus Obama today....
Why don't you start a new thread and title it "Blues for Allah?"
singed thread...
Funny. . .I was floating around the pool yesterday listening to that. 8)
Quote from: Hoss on August 22, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
You do realize there are some Arabs that are Christians, correct?
And that Iranians are NOT Arab? Nor are most Muslims.
Quote from: swake on August 22, 2011, 05:06:03 PM
And that Iranians are NOT Arab? Nor are most Muslims.
That was my point...what I've been talking about all thread. The generalizations that are made regarding people of Muslim faith. The majority of Muslims from my understanding come from Indonesia, with Pakistan being second.
Quote from: we vs us on August 22, 2011, 04:14:33 PM
I'm still amazed that through all that, we're still confusing Arabs with Muslims. Can we all go back and read our wikipedia entries again?
Not all Arabs are Muslim. Not all Muslims are Arabs.
What percentage of Arabs are Muslim?
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 22, 2011, 06:14:49 PM
Not all Arabs are Muslim. Not all Muslims are Arabs.
What percentage of Arabs are Muslim?
Netflix?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 06:17:11 PM
Netflix?
No, an actual question. I expect the percentage to be high but I don't know how high.
Quote from: Hoss on August 22, 2011, 05:08:35 PM
That was my point...what I've been talking about all thread. The generalizations that are made regarding people of Muslim faith. The majority of Muslims from my understanding come from Indonesia, with Pakistan being second.
India and Bangladesh are then the next two largest after Indonesia and Pakistan. Egypt is the largest Arab nation but only has the fifth largest Muslim population world wide and the is the only Arab nation in the top eight nations with the largest Muslim populations. And Egypt is hardly some hard line Saudi style theocracy. 80% of Muslims are in fact not Arab. The only hard line Islamic state in the eight largest is Iran.
Again all of the five largest Muslim nations have elected female leaders, something that we have yet to do. That is directly in conflict with Gasp's idea that all Muslim nations treat women just like the Taliban and the Saudi's do. The Taliban are a small and hated rebel group in two countries and Saudi Arabia only has the 16th largest Muslim population.
You don't believe me?
The percentage of Pakistani's with a positive view of the Taliban? 4%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126602/taliban-increasingly-unpopular-pakistan.aspx
The percentage of Afghan's with a positive view of the Taliban? 10%
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/world/main6082241.shtml
Quote from: swake on August 22, 2011, 08:34:11 PM
India and Bangladesh are then the next two largest after Indonesia and Pakistan. Egypt is the largest Arab nation but only has the fifth largest Muslim population world wide and the is the only Arab nation in the top eight nations with the largest Muslim populations. And Egypt is hardly some hard line Saudi style theocracy. 80% of Muslims are in fact not Arab. The only hard line Islamic state in the eight largest is Iran.
Again all of the five largest Muslim nations have elected female leaders, something that we have yet to do. That is directly in conflict with Gasp's idea that all Muslim nations treat women just like the Taliban and the Saudi's do. The Taliban are a small and hated rebel group in two countries and Saudi Arabia only has the 16th largest Muslim population.
You don't believe me?
The percentage of Pakistani's with a positive view of the Taliban? 4%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126602/taliban-increasingly-unpopular-pakistan.aspx
The percentage of Afghan's with a positive view of the Taliban? 10%
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/world/main6082241.shtml
A true "Muslim" nation wouldn't elect a female leader. Do you mean a country where Islam is the predominant religion?
Who cares if it's the largest or smallest Muslim state? The idea that women or any human being is to be treated as livestock as per a religious belief and carried out via a theocracy is totally repugnant.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 09:58:03 PM
The idea that women or any human being is to be treated as livestock as per a religious belief and carried out via a theocracy is totally repugnant.
OK, not sure what's going on with this thread now but, well, yes.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 09:58:03 PM
Who cares if it's the largest or smallest Muslim state? The idea that women or any human being is to be treated as livestock as per a religious belief and carried out via a theocracy is totally repugnant.
*cough* quiverfull *cough* dominionist *cough*
ED!: The GOP only likes wars under Republican Presidents. (AWESOME REPORTING)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44236332#44236332
The President can't be beat on the foreign policy issue come election time. I wonder if he's been briefed by intelligence about a terrorist attack and stopped it while avoiding any word leaking out. While I wish he'd get out of Afghanistan, something tells me he now knows why we have to be there for now and it's not about politics.
I can't believe he had the gall to go on vacation this week. We are so fortunate to have the Cheney/Bush mindset on permanent vacation. Of course, those two should be means tested for the federal welfare they receive for retirement.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 09:58:03 PM
A true "Muslim" nation wouldn't elect a female leader. Do you mean a country where Islam is the predominant religion?
Who cares if it's the largest or smallest Muslim state? The idea that women or any human being is to be treated as livestock as per a religious belief and carried out via a theocracy is totally repugnant.
What do you mean a "true" Muslim nation? How is Saudi Arabia more Muslim than Turkey? Because Saudi Arabia's treatment of women is repugnant and that feeds our distorted impression of what Muslims are like? Both are very nearly 100% Muslim but Turkey has almost triple the population.
Most Americans, Gasp here specifically, like to treat Islam like it one big homogenous and like minded group. It's far from that. Most Muslims are not like the Saudis, by far most are not. The Saudis are Arab and their religion is Wahhabism, which is a sub sect of the sub sect Sunni Muslim. None of the five nations with the largest Muslim population are either Arab or Wahhabi. Though a lot of Pakistan's current problems rise out of Religious schools in poor areas paid for by Saudis who are Wahhabi.
Here are the specific five nations with the largest Muslim populations, note that this info is all from the CIA Factbook
1. Republic of Indonesia, population 246 million, 86% Muslim. A republic without a Sharia law system
2. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, population 187 million, 95% Muslim. The government is noted as having a common law system with Islamic law (Sharia) influence
3. People's Republic of Bangladesh, population 159 million, 90% Muslim. The government is noted as being a parliamentary democracy with a mixed legal system of mostly English common law and Islamic law
4. Republic of India, population 1.189 billion (13% Muslim which is about 159 million people). The judicial system is a common law system based on the English model; separate personal law codes apply to Muslims, Christians, and Hindus so there is some Sharia influence.
5. Republic of Turkey, population 79 million, 99% Muslim. The government is a republican parliamentary democracy without a Sharia law system.
Every single one of these countries has elected a woman to lead their country, which is something the Saudis would never do, even if they were to have an election. Something we have never come close to doing. Three of the five largest nations have some Sharia influence in their legal systems but still manage to allow women to be the leader of the whole nation. Gaspar's broad strokes to paint the Muslim world as being Arab and Wahhabist like the Saudis or nuts like the Taliban is just plain wrong.
The strict application of Sharia, the mistreatment of women, the Taliban, Al Qaeda all have something in common and it's not Islam. Most if not all Islamic terrorists not involved with the Palestinian issue all have that one thing in common too. It's Saudi Arabia. Whether it's Saudi money, Saudi paid for Wahhibi style schools or some combination thereof, all our problems don't seem to have Islam so much as the center of our troubles like Gasp keeps saying. Our problem is more specifically Saudi Arabia.
Why doesn't Faux News that likes to rail on Islam in general so much not talk more specifically about Saudi Arabia? It's a perfect target for them and there's some real basis in reality to attack the Saudis. Is it because the largest shareholder of Newscorp not named Murdoch is a prince from the Saudi royal family?
Had never really thought of it that way. Thanks for the info swake.
Swake, actually, I don't pick up from Gaspar that he thinks all Muslims are like the extremists.
I believe you and I are talking past each other on what a "Muslim nation" is. You are defining it as percentages of population, I'm defining it by government charters. Each of the countries you listed is much more of a secular government, much like the United States.
When I think of a Muslim nation, I think of one like Iran which is ruled by a system of mullahs and ayatollahs, or an Islamic monarchy like Saudi Arabia, not a secular republic like Turkey, which yes, is inhabited mostly by Muslims. Most of whom are pretty progressive in their religious thinking.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 02:59:59 PM
I don't pick up from Gaspar that he thinks all Muslims are like the extremists.
Our reading comprehension differs. The PM's I receive tell me I'm not alone.
As before he'll post something blatantly blanketed and then backpedal as soon as he realizes how small minded he sounds.
That's why I try to clarify his points. He makes the threads sound bigoted.
I'm just getting a kick out of the attempts to re-define what I said. :D
Shhh, people without emoticons are talking.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2011, 02:59:59 PM
Swake, actually, I don't pick up from Gaspar that he thinks all Muslims are like the extremists.
I believe you and I are talking past each other on what a "Muslim nation" is. You are defining it as percentages of population, I'm defining it by government charters. Each of the countries you listed is much more of a secular government, much like the United States.
When I think of a Muslim nation, I think of one like Iran which is ruled by a system of mullahs and ayatollahs, or an Islamic monarchy like Saudi Arabia, not a secular republic like Turkey, which yes, is inhabited mostly by Muslims. Most of whom are pretty progressive in their religious thinking.
The three largest are clearly Islamic nations.
From the constitution of the country with the largest Muslim population, Indonesia:
1. the national independence of Indonesia shall be formulated into a constitution of the sovereign Republic of Indonesia which is based on the belief in the One and Only God...
2. National independence of Indonesia shall be formulated into a constitution of the sovereign Republic of Indonesia which is based on the belief in the One and Only God, just and humanity, the unity of Indonesia, democracy guided by the inner wisdom of deliberations amongst representatives and the realization of social justice for all of the people of Indonesia
Second Largest, Pakistan (also known as The
Islamic Republic of Pakistan)
1. Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust
2. Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed
3. Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah
4. ...the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation to be administered through laws enacted by the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, and for policy making by the Government
Third Largest, Bangladesh
1. The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice, together with the principles derived from them as set out in this Part, shall constitute the fundamental principles of state policy
2. Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions
The fourth largest is India which is predominatly Hindu so this doesn't apply. Turkey, the fifth largest, has a firmly secular government. But the three largest are all clearly Islamic countries.
They also have statements like this in their constitutions:
Every individual is free to follow a religion and to practice according to his religion, to choose the education and teaching, job, citizenship, to stay in or to leave the country, and shall not be denied re-entry – Indonesia
The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic
Subject to law, public order and morality-
(a) every citizen has the right to profess, practice or propagate any religion;
(b) every religious community or denomination has the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.
No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction, or to take part in or to attend any religious ceremony or worship, if that instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own – Bangledesh
Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures – Pakistan
These three are clearly Islamic nations that have all elected women as Prime Minister and that at least tolerate other religions and that do not codify the subjugation of women, even if it does happen in practice in poor tribal areas. Practices that harm and relegate women to second class status in those areas and in the gulf are more tribal than they are religious.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/women/
Don't forget that most Muslims live in these five countries. Together they have almost 800 million Muslim citizens which badly dwarfs the population of the gulf states, which are the basis for Americans stereotypical image of "Muslims".
Quote from: swake on August 23, 2011, 04:06:11 PM
the basis for Americans stereotypical image of "Muslims".
Television, movies, and "bleeds it leads" journalism.
You'd think, as Oklahomans, we'd understand how stereotyping is harmful.
Quote from: swake on August 23, 2011, 04:06:11 PM
The three largest are clearly Islamic nations.
From the constitution of the country with the largest Muslim population, Indonesia:
1. the national independence of Indonesia shall be formulated into a constitution of the sovereign Republic of Indonesia which is based on the belief in the One and Only God...
2. National independence of Indonesia shall be formulated into a constitution of the sovereign Republic of Indonesia which is based on the belief in the One and Only God, just and humanity, the unity of Indonesia, democracy guided by the inner wisdom of deliberations amongst representatives and the realization of social justice for all of the people of Indonesia
Second Largest, Pakistan (also known as The Islamic Republic of Pakistan)
1. Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust
2. Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed
3. Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah
4. ...the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation to be administered through laws enacted by the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, and for policy making by the Government
Third Largest, Bangladesh
1. The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice, together with the principles derived from them as set out in this Part, shall constitute the fundamental principles of state policy
2. Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions
The fourth largest is India which is predominatly Hindu so this doesn't apply. Turkey, the fifth largest, has a firmly secular government. But the three largest are all clearly Islamic countries.
They also have statements like this in their constitutions:
Every individual is free to follow a religion and to practice according to his religion, to choose the education and teaching, job, citizenship, to stay in or to leave the country, and shall not be denied re-entry – Indonesia
The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic
Subject to law, public order and morality-
(a) every citizen has the right to profess, practice or propagate any religion;
(b) every religious community or denomination has the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.
No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction, or to take part in or to attend any religious ceremony or worship, if that instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own – Bangledesh
Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures – Pakistan
These three are clearly Islamic nations that have all elected women as Prime Minister and that at least tolerate other religions and that do not codify the subjugation of women, even if it does happen in practice in poor tribal areas. Practices that harm and relegate women to second class status in those areas and in the gulf are more tribal than they are religious.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/women/
Don't forget that most Muslims live in these five countries. Together they have almost 800 million Muslim citizens which badly dwarfs the population of the gulf states, which are the basis for Americans stereotypical image of "Muslims".
Good research.
Indonesia, you'll note does not specifically mention Islam in the passage you cited, but point taken. I think we can agree those are obviously much more progressive than, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia which would be, considered, what? Fundamentalist. That's what I've always considered a "Muslim" country as I considered the others you mentioned as being secular for the simple reason that their form of government looks a whole lot more like other secular governments around the globe rather than theocracies.
Quote from: Townsend on August 23, 2011, 03:24:44 PM
Shhh, people without emoticons are talking.
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
You hear that? It's a mime screaming.
Fareed Zakharia has an interesting article out, in which he delineates the Admin's criteria for intervention in Libya. To wit:
Quote" . . . But the Libya intervention is so significant precisely because it did not follow the traditional pattern of U.S.-led interventions. Indeed, it launched a new era in U.S. foreign policy.
The United States decided that it was only going to intervene in Libya if it could establish several conditions:
1) A local group that was willing to fight and die for change; in other words, "indigenous capacity".
2) Locally recognized legitimacy in the form of the Arab League's request for intervention.
3) International legitimacy in the form of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.
4) Genuine burden sharing with the British and French spelling out precisely how many sorties they would be willing to man and precisely what level of commitment they would be willing to provide.
It was only when all those conditions were fulfilled that the Obama Administration agreed to play a pivotal but supporting role in the Libya operation."
He makes a great point as well regarding cost:
Quote"The new model does two things:
First, it ensures that there's genuinely a local alliance committed to the same goals as the external coalition. This way, there is more legitimacy on the ground. And if there is anything Afghanistan and Iraq have taught us, it is that local legitimacy is key.
Second, this model ensures that there is genuine burden sharing so that the United States is not left owning the country as has happened so often in the past.
Compared to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Libya operation was a bargain. It cost the U.S. about $1 billion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan collectively cost the U.S. $1.3 trillion. In other words, success in Libya could be achieved at less than one-tenth of one percent of the cost of the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's not a bad model for the future."
And he's right. Iraq and Afghanistan were always going to be transformational conflicts, and among other things they've managed to strip down our criteria for intervention to dollar amount and other leveraged elements (external and internal allies, and global legitimacy).
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/23/a-new-era-in-u-s-foreign-policy/?hpt=hp_c1
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2011, 09:46:52 AM
Fareed Zakharia has an interesting article out, in which he delineates the Admin's criteria for intervention in Libya. To wit:
He makes a great point as well regarding cost:
And he's right. Iraq and Afghanistan were always going to be transformational conflicts, and among other things they've managed to strip down our criteria for intervention to dollar amount and other leveraged elements (external and internal allies, and global legitimacy).
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/23/a-new-era-in-u-s-foreign-policy/?hpt=hp_c1
I can't argue with the logic of playing a supporting role rather than being top cop on an operation like that and I think it would behoove any future Presidents to adopt such a strategy.
Now, what's the payback for the U.S.'s $1 billion investment in a Libyan regime change? ;)
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2011, 09:46:52 AM
Fareed Zakharia has an interesting article out, in which he delineates the Admin's criteria for intervention in Libya. To wit:
He makes a great point as well regarding cost:
And he's right. Iraq and Afghanistan were always going to be transformational conflicts, and among other things they've managed to strip down our criteria for intervention to dollar amount and other leveraged elements (external and internal allies, and global legitimacy).
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/23/a-new-era-in-u-s-foreign-policy/?hpt=hp_c1
I like Fareed, even before he disclosed himself as being an Obama supporter. Very intelligent and a lot of insight on the Middle East. More so than most, even some who are former residents of the area.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2011, 09:53:44 AM
Now, what's the payback for the U.S.'s $1 billion investment in a Libyan regime change? ;)
What's been the payback on most of our military actions in the last 10 years?..well...the ones we know about...duh duh duhhhhhh
Quote from: Townsend on August 24, 2011, 09:59:25 AM
What's been the payback on most of our military actions in the last 10 years?..well...the ones we know about...duh duh duhhhhhh
Come on now. You knew I couldn't hand out a compliment to Obama without a requisite back-hand bitchslap.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2011, 10:17:39 AM
Come on now. You knew I couldn't hand out a compliment to Obama without a requisite back-hand bitchslap.
Sure sure.
So I was thinking about all the jokes coming Oklahoma's way over the last...well, decades I guess. I'm looking at the Republican field and I'm pretty sure the USA would be an international Oklahoma. Europe would be the new East Coast and China/Japan would be the new West coast. The USA would be the flyovers because everyone would see us as a land full o'loons with one of them in office.
Canada could be the new Maine. "SometAAAHHms, dead is betta."
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2011, 09:53:44 AM
Now, what's the payback for the U.S.'s $1 billion investment in a Libyan regime change? ;)
I've been actually thinking about this question since the run-up to Iraq, where Cheney was promising a shady sort of thing where somehow the captured oil wealth would pay for the war itself and I realized that . . . in every modern conflict since, well, WWI at least, the idea of plunder as major conflict motivator has completely gone away. Of course, after WWII, a huge exception has to be made for the Soviets, who literally dismantled German factories and transported them brick by brick back into Russia. But aside from that I can't think of any modern war outside of some of the African conflicts where capturing wealth was primary.
But I realized then that the gains in modern warfare and geopolitics are never 1 for 1. You never get reimbursed straight away. And the folks who get reimbursed aren't the citizens of the country going to war, but the country's private industry. Back in the day we used to call that Colonialism, whereby the Dutch East India Company (or similar) snaps up the mineral rights, plunders the resources, enslaves the natives, and in general takes anything of value. Nowadays, I think the economic implications are more indirect, and we fight to open up markets to globalism.
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2011, 10:33:19 AM
the folks who get reimbursed aren't the citizens of the country going to war, but the country's private industry.
A form of trickle down?